Jodorowsky on NWR "savior of cinema"

>Superman makes me vomit- Batman, all that. That whole empire- this religion, I don’t give a damn. I shit on the United States. Cinema is on its way to degenerate as an industry and it’s all thanks to America. This octopus with eight arms, this cancer that American film is- has infected the entire planet. It’s just a bunch of spiritual excrement. And when you see how films radiate the same spiritual excrement ushered in by the likes of Spielberg and Lucas, you begin to lose hope. So when you discover an artist like Refn- an artist who can survive in this environment uncontaminated- that is a moment of great joy. This lad, Niclas, has saved me from my film depression.

How does this make you feel?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sB_TUdkfIEw
youtube.com/watch?v=CUrd-VWiBZM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I like Refn, I liked the Holy Mountain, but whenever I hear what Jodorowsky has to say about film the more I think he's an idiot.

It makes me feel bored. He's just another doomsaying bullshitter. I hoped he would be more interesting. Oh well.

>Sup Forums and Sup Forums on suicide watch
Capeshit cucks BTFO

>switched to digital
>thinks refn is not absolute shit

fucking dropped

>He's just another doomsaying bullshitter
you don't think cinema as a whole has gotten worse? it's an objective fact that there are less better films now than there was even as recently as the 90s

...

Jodorowsky strikes me as the kind of guy who would revere his friends' work no matter what.

I've always said Refn is kubricks heir

youtube.com/watch?v=sB_TUdkfIEw
I can't decide who talks more shit in this video...unreal

>this was followed by Refn crying for half an hour before jodorosky calming him with psychomagic and tarots

>Calls him doomsday bullshitter
>Ignores the fact that studios actually support only great economic hits otherwise they would lose money
>No more artistic films will be made because nothing can guarantee an economic success on weird looking shit execs wouldn't understand

He is right, that's why you have formulaic movies every year, same thing with the shows

Jodorowsky while being a psychomagic and tarot bullshitter, it does.not mean that he is wrong, studios control whatever is made or not.

Nicolas Winding Refn
Director: Drive, Only God Forgives

Watching the trailers for Metal Gear Solid V makes you wonder if the spirits of Dostoyevsky, Stanley Kubrick, and Caravaggio entered Hideo Kojima’s body because, using the art of gaming as his canvas, he boldly goes where no one has gone before.

The trailers for Metal Gear Solid V prove once again that Hideo Kojima is a master at portraying a wider and more complex view of human nature combined with breathtaking action sequences. A daring and bold move from one of the founders of the future of technology. With Metal Gear Solid V, Hideo Kojima has created the perfect marriage of cinematic storytelling and cutting edge gaming technology. For me, it all culminates into one word: Genius.

>you will never hang out with them
>why even

If Jodo ever gave me a compliment, and my name isn't Jean Giraud, then I'd stop doing what i was doing and do the exact opposite

And then mock Jodo for being a whiny cunt abused by his father and jealous of the Americans in Chile

What else did you expect from a pretensious hack?

He's right, but there are much better directors than Refn from America, such as PTA (granted PTA is woefully unappreciated by Hollywood.)

On a side note, you guys should see The Player by Robert Altman.

When I wanted to do the rape scene, I explained to [Mara Lorenzio] that I was going to hit her and rape her. There was no emotional relationship between us, because I had put a clause in all the women's contracts stating that they would not make love with the director. We had never talked to each other. I knew nothing about her. We went to the desert with two other people: the photographer and a technician. No one else. I said, 'I'm not going to rehearse. There will be only one take because it will be impossible to repeat. Roll the cameras only when I signal you to.' Then I told her, 'Pain does not hurt. Hit me.' And she hit me. I said, 'Harder.' And she started to hit me very hard, hard enough to break a rib... I ached for a week. After she had hit me long enough and hard enough to tire her, I said, 'Now it's my turn. Roll the cameras.' And I really... I really... I really raped her. And she screamed."

Who about who?

think again sweetie

...

Good filmmaker or great filmmaker?

What a bullshit nostalgia post. Bad films were always made, you just think of all the great ones like they happened in a single year.

>it's an objective fact that there are less better films now than there was even as recently as the 90s
Absolutely ignorant bullshit. The year 2007 alone has better films than half of the 90s
>No Country for Old Men (2007)
>There Will Be Blood (2007)
>The Assassination of Jesse James (2007)
>Zodiac (2007)
>Eastern Promises (2007)
>Before The Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

>Film makes it automatically good

Fuck off hipster.

He has bad taste. Most American film, and especially Hollywood and capetrash, is indeed shit. But Refn is a glorified music video director. He's never made a good film except the one he didn't write.

But if you're only qualification for "good" is sparse dialogue, lingering camera, and not generic Hollywood shit, then sure you'd find hacks like Refn and McQueen good. Even Villenueve, and Inarritu. That's the Quadrumvirate of Pseudocinema right now.

what exactly is wrong with refn, mcqueen etc beyond the criticism that their works are pretentious and masturbatory

their movies are solid i think..not like GOAT status but very solid

>Bad films were always made
show me in my post where i said otherwise
>you just think of all the great ones like they happened in a single year.
show me in my post where i said this
>citing the same meme movies from the same meme year

let's see:

>NCFOM
>release date: november 9
>TWBB
>release date: december 26
>TAOJJ
>release date: september 21
>Zodiac
>release date: March 2
>Eastern promises
>release date: September 14
>BTDKYD
>release date: October 12

let's exclude zodiac since it's an outlier in terms of release date.

that's 5 great movies in a span of 4 months

since "great" movies typically come out in the fall for award season let's take a look at last year's epic fall releases:

>la la land
meh
>moonlight
bad
>arrival
meh
>nocturnal animals
good
>manchester by the sea
okay
>I, daniel blake
good
>toni erdmann
good
>paterson
good
>lion
shit
>hacksaw ridge
shit
>fences
shit
>hidden figures
shit

so you're telling me the best movies of 2016 that came out in the same time span as 2017 are equivalent in quality? gtfo faggot

have you watched jodorowsky's recent efforts? you can totally make digital work. he just didn't.

>>No more artistic films will be made because nothing can guarantee an economic success on weird looking shit execs wouldn't understand
This is bullshit. Now it's easier to make and distribute independent films that it ever was thanks to digital technology, the same as with music. Before this, the studios were the only ones making movies and you had to suck their dick to make even the shittiest film, or at least get it distributed.
The problem with big studios, and with big music labels is that they're becoming obsolete (the music got hit hard much more than film because it's much easier to produce and distribute). If anything, he should be praising the fall of the studio system and the raise of true independent filmmaking.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Refn, Aronofsky, PTA are all the same tripe. Innaritu and Cuaron are the same tripe. And now we have a brilliant new hack of a director, Damien Chazelle to throw into the mix. And so it continues.

Cinema really has fallen. Yet most people on Sup Forums have bad enough taste that they can't even see this.

Who are your favorite directors?

Also here's another, just for fun.

Holy fuck now this is true actual autism.
Yes my fellow turboautist, not every single year in film is completely equivalent in quality.
I could take one bad year from your precious 90s too and talk how they are bad as a whole, that means nothing.

Kubrick, Welles, Ford, and so on. I'm not some hipster "muh classics" loser, I approach every contemporary film I watch with a lack of bias and a strong desire/hope that it will be good, but rarely do they ever impress me. I want to be impressed by them, but rarely do manage to do so.

I just think it's undeniable that the generation of directors back then had such a greater understanding of the human experience and how to distill it into a film. Their imaginations were far more vivid. They just had a better understanding of what CINEMA was supposed to be. I don't think this understanding can be taught or really even learnt, I consider those directors to be innately talented, hence why I can't even really complain if today's directors don't measure up, because I think that we essentially have to "wait" until the next set of visionaries pop up - there is absolutely no way of forcing them into existence, they'll arrive when they arrive.

Commercial cinema has fallen lower and lower with each subsequent generation. There was the generation of masters - Kubrick (personal favorite), Welles, Ford, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc. The next generation brought Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, etc, who are good directors but certainly not on the level of the previous generation - cinema has lost some of its resonance, some of its depth. Then today we have the likes of Tarantino, Nolan, PTA, Coens, and so on. Who are all very hit-and-miss, undoubtedly worse than the previous generation of Spielberg's and Scorsese's, unable to truly understand the human experience and put it onto the screen. Their imaginations just aren't that vivid, and if they are - they haven't demonstrated an ability to capture it on-screen. I'm also only discussing COMMERCIAL cinema, btw.

I hope the next generation of directors reverses this trend, but like I said it comes down to innate talent so it isn't something anyone has any control over. Sorry for the novel and ramblings, hope I made my views clear.

Thwy're good movies but nowhere near as good as they like to think they are. Especially McQueen's 12 Years a Slave and Inarritu in general.

I really like that Refn likes to takes chances with his films, any other director would have tried the easy way out and make garbage thar appeals to normies.
Like Tarantino when he made no money with Jackie Brown then makes kill bill and IB.
No wonder he was just fucking jelly at the cannes reception of refn.

Refn instead goes the opposite way after drive.
That takes balls. Beyond the objective quality of his films thats is something to respect.

Kill yourself

im talking about trends faggot. chart the quantity of good films a year on a graph and it will have a declining slope.
lol your hate for cringy PTA fans is equivalent to the hate that older people had for Kubrick fans in the 60s-80s. shut the fuck up faggot

kek

Coens and PTA are as good as Spielberg, Scorsese and coppolla.

Malick, Lynch and cronenberg are all operating at their top levels. The 90s and 2000s had masters like kiarastomi and WKW come out with multiple masterpieces (both of those directors are far better than Kubrick btw) . There's tons of great modern directors like farhadi, bilge ceylan, weerskathul, tsai Ming liang , hou hsiao, Kim ki duk, assayas, jia zhangke etc who are better than many of the so called "masters" you're talking about

Your entire post is shit and you clearly know nothing about cinema

It's more like a cycle of good and bad films, not a steadily declining graph.
Same goes for any artform really.

Your problem is you're only talking about America. There's great commercial cinema coming out of places like Korea, France and Hong Kong.

it's unbelievable how ignorant you are

I get the first part, buf Refn? The fuck?

The cunt does pseudo intellectual action movies.

You forgot to mention sieranevada, graduation, the salesman, the red turtle, lady Macbeth, certain women, things to come, personal shopper, Aquarius, love and friendship, embrace of the serpent , etc. All great films. 2016 was a great year for film

>pseudocinema
Kubrick is the absolute master of pseudocinema. The fact that plebs still bring him up alongside actual good directors like Bresson, Osu, Tarkovsky and Bergman is hilarious. Kubrick was the original hack.

somebody post that image with bergman and tarkovsky and james cameron and zack snyder

>sieranevada
never seen
>the salesman
asfar is a hack
>graduation
DUDE RUSSIAN LIFE IS SO HARD LMAO
>the red turtle
havent seen but looks like shit
>lady macbeth
saw this one last week, another DUDE THE 1800s WAS SO HARD N SHIT LOOOK AT ALL THESE AFFAIRS LMAO
>things to come
shit film save for the kaczynski scene, that was pretty funny. most huppert movies out now are 5-6/10-tier
>personal shopper
this was one of the worst films ive ever seen in my life. almost as bad as cloud of sils maria
>certain women
this was actually good
>aquarius
havent seen
>love and friendship
boring
>embrace of the serpent
good

>Kubrick
Complete hack. Anyone who thinks he's anything more than a mediocre genre director knows nothing about cinema. Michael Mann is unironically a better director than Kubrick.
>Welles
Highly overrated, mostly style over substance.
>Ford
Actually good, but seems to be the only pre-50s American director plebs can mention and forget about Griffith, Hawks, Wilder, etc.
>Kurosawa
Literally the worst popular Japanese director of his era
>fellini
Most Italians were hacks, fellini is no exception. Never made a good film. Coens are far better

>graduation
>Russian
Your opinions are trash.

Assayas is a better filmmaker than Kubrick btw

Well done, Nicholas, well done. HOWEVER

>It’s just a bunch of spiritual excrement

So are your "films" jodo

Nice googling faggot

>Coens and PTA are as good as Spielberg, Scorsese

Stopped reading there, sorry. You sound like one of the idiots in the screencaps I posted above. PTA has never made anything close to a Taxi Driver, nor will he ever. TWBB is a very, very average film, with an atrocious ending, yet you probably consider it "masterful", and a "profound allegory for the destructive nature of capitalism", since that's what all the pseud critics convinced themselves it was in order to make their own egos look better. PTA has made nothing but mediocrity his entire career, but his reliance on gimmicks like long takes and ensemble casts have likely fooled you into thinking that automatically makes his films great. Films like No Country for Old Men are great, but still don't quite reach the heights of something like Taxi Driver.

Alright, let me read the rest of your awful post.

>Malick, Lynch
Both are far, far out of their prime. What the hell do you mean "operating at their top levels"?

>Kiarastomi and WKW are far better than Kubrick

Alright, well, thanks for making this much easier for me. I can end this post here, knowing fully what a clueless person I'm talking to.

I will say that I haven't heard of most of the directors you mentioned at the bottom, but if their films aren't "commercial" it doesn't matter since I specified COMMERCIAL cinema in my above post. I also doubt that they'd be "better" than anyone I mentioned, even if they happen to be good. I will check them out though, since you've clearly seen more films than I have. Even though depth-of-knowledge is far more important than breadth-of-knowledge, you possess the latter but not much of the former.

Anyway, I wish you no harm. Have a good day.

>Assayas is a better filmmaker than Kubrick btw
lol
im sorry user if those are the best a year has to offer then it's a shit year

>>Tarkovsky
Lmao, Tarkovsky literally saw 2001 and felt he had to make a boring, discounted version of it, yet he's the "good" director, and the man who created 2001 in the first place is the "hack"?

Incredible, incredible reasoning skills there.

>Hideo Kojima is a master at portraying a wider and more complex view of human nature

Taxi driver and last temptation of Christ are better than any PTA or coens film but overall PTA and Coens are far more consistent than Scorsese or Spielberg. Neither of them have made films as bad as say the departed, and the master, blood simple and Barton fink are close to the level of taxi driver.

Malick and Lynch are far from out of their primes considering they both made the best movies of their careers in the 21st century. Lynchs last 3 films are in his top 4. The tree of life is better than anything Scorsese, Kubrick or Spielberg ever made .

Kubrick is plebs first favorite director. He honestly can't compare to the level of kiarastomi, wkw , Bergman, dreyer, tarkovsky, bresson, etc. I'd highly recommend you expand your tastes before you start talking shit. It's honestly hilarious how you're so self confident in your opinion yet have not seen any of the truly great works of art in the film medium . Oh and WKW is just as "commercial" as Kubrick, which is a dumb way of looking at cinema anyways . Good filmmakers aren't looking to make "commercial" films, even guys like Spielberg and Scorsese

If you think 2001 is better than Solaris you know absolutely nothing about cinema

Lmao, a simple google search for Michael Mann will take you to his Wikipedia page, where his "Early Life" section on literally a single paragraph dominated by him claiming that Dr. Strangelove was the film that inspired him to make movies, basically just him praising Kubrick and talking about how much of an impact he had on him.

You're just a dumb contrarian, Sup Forums is unfortunately filled to the brim with people like you.

the tree of life is fuckin shit m8

>the tree of life is fuckin shit m8

PTA is better than Kubrick.

kiarostami made two good movies, bergman is kubrick for european faggots, tarkovsky made 3 good movies, bresson made 1 good movie, you are a faggot

Is contrarian just another word for having your own opinions?

Why do I think I used the specific example of Michael Mann? Because he's a Kubrick-like director who's surpassed Kubrick. Directors can surpass their influences. By your logic why are you even mentioning Kubrick instead of ophuls and Fritz Lang?

The former is one of the most revolutionary films in the history of cinema, literally changing special effects and the science fiction genre forever, becoming the backbone of it even 50 years later. The latter is merely one of the dozens of films that only came into existence after its creator saw the former, which tried to rival its genius, did not do so (Tarkovsky's own admission), yet still made a thought-provoking and beautiful film.

YOU know nothing about cinema.

Kubrick made 0 good movies and you're a pleb. Kubrick films have pretty much nothing in common with Bergman films, maybe try watching them sometime

>influencing special effects makes for a great work of art
Citizen Kane is hugely influential too, it's still not an amazing film. Solaris actually has depth unlike the bland 2001.

By your logic both 2001 and Solaris are shit compared to metropolis

youtube.com/watch?v=CUrd-VWiBZM

>"this director is bad and you're a pleb"
>"no your director is shit and YOU are a pleb!"

The state of this board. You guys are so fucking pathetic.

Because in what effing way has he surpassed Kubrick?????????? Do tell me. Cinematography, use of sound, narrative, casting, all things which Kubrick left a deep footprint on, in what fucking respect has Mann even come close to Kubrick in any avenue?What fucking film does Mann have that even compares to something like 2001?

Have your own opinions, sure, but you just have no clue what you're talking about and that's my problem with you.


Nope, it's when people deliberately go against an understood truth for the sake of being different, and not because they can actually validate that claim of theirs with a strong argument.

thought-provoking

off yourself

it's always been this way

t. here since 2009

>Kubrick left a deep imprint on casting and narrative
Lmao

Please watch some foreign cinema and stop jerking off to this overrated hack

Kubrick relied so much on special effects and neat camera tricks yet couldn't make a film nearly as good as The Passion of Joan of arc

Kubrickfags need to at least graduate high school before trying to talk about cinema

>implying Malcolm McDowell's casting in ACO isn't one of the most fitting lead casting choices ever
>implying 2001 didn't introduce a new form of narrative into cinema

I'll watch more foreign films, sure, doesn't mean you have to discredit a genuinely brilliant director like Kubrick in order to prop up said foreign cinema. They can both be great, can't they? Also no, all of those "camera tricks" were grounded in ideas connected to the film (like the free-flowing camera usage in ACO, for example), he was never masturbatory with camera the way so many directors today are.

>All the plebs opinions on this thread.

Instead of jerking off to kubrick watch some fucking movies please.
No wonder PTA is considered the new kubrick by millennials.

True, and it's just a "coincidence" that of all the directors following him, he happens to be the one most of them refer back to as heavily impacting them. Spielberg, Scorsese, Mann, PTA, Nolan, Tarantino, Refn, the list goes on.
Welles himself called Kubrick a "giant".

Sure buddy, I'm just a highschooler faggot who knows nothing about cinema for liking Kubrick, but by your own logic most of the actual directors that worked in cinema the past few generations are also highschooler faggots who know nothing about cinema.

I guess it's only you who knows about good cinema then, not me nor any of the people who are currently or have previously worked in it.

best post in this thread by far.

>lists only Hollywood filmmakers
Maybe try watching the directors that Kubrick loved and desperately tried to imitate.

Look Kubrick is a good director , but he's nowhere near the greatest ever, I doubt he's even top 25. He's hopelessly overrated because he's the first "art" director people hear of. A lot of the top directors in Europe during Kubricks heyday actually had negative opinions about him.

Kubrickfags are honestly pathetic.
>Muh speshul effects
>Muh natural lighting
Kubrick was so devoid of real thought he couldn't even make a film that was devoid of genre trappings. The closest he came to actual art was eyes wide shut

I'm abandoning this thread now, but I will admit to having seen less movies than the people in this thread, and even though I feel I have strong understanding of what I've seen, I haven't seen as much as I should have. I love Kubrick but perhaps he's only so incredible because it's all relative to what I've seen thus far. I will check other films out. Can you give me some directors and films to watch?

Shoo shoo, there's a Twin Peaks general waiting for you, brainlet

Jesus Christ are kubrickfags honestly this delusional? Metropolis predated 2001 by 40 years. And Kubrick casted Ryan o Neal, Tom cruise and Nicole Kidman in his films

Question. I rewatched Neon Demon yesterday and I was left carving for more. Can you recommend more movies that use mainly the visual medium to tell a history? Or work with shock value? I've seen many things by Tarkovsky and also fucking love them. NWR really reminds me of him. I'm about to watch The Cure For Wellness which I heard is really like Neon Demon.
>Inb4 Lynch
Already saw most of his work and I believe Neon Demon takes many things from Mulholland Dr.
But the photography is just so much better with NWR

>>implying Malcolm McDowell's casting in ACO isn't one of the most fitting lead casting choices ever
>Kubrickfags actually believe this
Imagine how good barry Lyndon could've been if Kubrick cast someone with charisma in the lead role instead of Ryan fucking o Neal. The funniest part is how fucking Walter hill was able to get a better performance put of o neal than kubrick.

The only good casting Kubrick ever did was r Lee ermey and he lucked out with that one

and you're incapable of recognizing how brilliantly tom cruise and nicole kidman's casting in EWS worked in accordance with the themes of the film, regarding infidelity in relationships, as well as giving the film a sort of meta-message that applies to real life? seeing as how they broke up sometime after the making of it.

you're unable to see that? you simply see "tom cruise, nicole kidman" and your brain automatically thinks "bad, those are bad actors, bad, it's bad, it is bad, must be bad" rather than recognizing the possible vision behind casting those two and how it corresponded with the specific film in question?

Also what the fuck does Metropolis have to do with SPACE you imbecile, just because they're science fiction and Kubrick borrowed some style from Lang, doesn't mean that 2001 isn't a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FILM you fucking idiot

Jodorwsky, early cronenberg, late era melville, early Scott, Bergman, noe, Cocteau, kar wai, zhang yimou, John woo

"Meta" is the lowest form of symbolism . Eyes wide shut can't stand on its own because it uses hackeyed symbolism regarding the real relationship between the stars. PTA was able to get a good performance out of cruise but Kubrick wasn't. The casting only makes sense if you knew about the real relationship which requires you to have tabloid knowledge about the stars, which is ridiculous .

Dreyer is actually someone who knew how to cast, which is why you never saw a bad performance in any of his films. the same can unfortunately not be said about Kubrick.

so Keir Dullea wasn't perfectly cast as the bright-eyed, clean-looking astronaut Dave Bowman? or Cruise as the

or Nicholson as Jack Torrance? Shelley Duvall as his wife?

Sue Lyon as Lolita? James Mason as Humbert Humbert?

Peter Sellers as all the brilliant, unforgettable roles he played in Strangelove?

Kirk Douglas in Paths?

This thread proves to me that even though I've seen less films than you guys, I clearly understand film much much much better than most of you, for you to call me a "kubrickfag" and then embarrass yourself by denying what are clearly brilliant, iconic casting choices all across the board of his filmography, with two cherry picking faggots bringing up his casting of Ryan O Neal and ignoring the outstanding casting choices in all the rest of his films. fuck all of you, you know nothing about cinema and no amount of films watched can give you an actual understanding of what makes a film work or not

What is the new form of narrative that 2001 introdued into cinema? The funny thing is I actually like Kubrick but unlike you I can see that he's not the greatest, most revolutionary director of all time. He made some good films sure , but he never reached the levels of bresson, ozu, dryer etc. He was too methodical to actually tap into real emotion the way the greats did. Just compare his treatise on the youth a clockwork Orange with bressons le diable probablement and you'll see what I mean.

can you name another film which jumps time the way 2001 does? directly from the prehistoric era to the future era?

i never said he was the greatest, just said he's very good and people shouldn't discredit him bc of his popularity. i'll leave this thread now, and i'll watch your bresson film

...

I'm not cherry picking, I was bringing up the most egregious examples of Kubricks mediocre casting. He made some good choices like Nicholson, sellers etc but I can't believe your actually defending Shelley Duvall and James mason .

Sue Lyons was okay, but the rest of Lolita was horribly miscast , especially sellers.

Kirk Douglas in paths of glory wasn't even up to Kubrick.

You might've at least have mentioned donofrio in FMJ which was a good one.

PTA is better at casting his movies than Kubrick is.

Please make a list of good 90s movies for me to DUDE LMAO the fuck out of them.

>2007 alone has better films than half of the 90s
2007 was a good year in films. the two years before that are less so.

Every 10 years or so there is a bunch films that come out and really meet the test of time.

98 had The Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, A Simple Plan, Life Is Beautiful and so on.

Movies happen in cycles

dont bother, you haven't seen any of them

>or Nicholson as Jack Torrance
Kubrick himself didn't like him at first, i heard. Thought that his appearance has something crazy and hellish from the get-go, which went contrary to his plans.

2006 had cache, volver, the new world, the Sun, the host and 2046 all of which are better than the movies you brought up. Like life is beautiful? Seriously? That's the 90s equivalent of the help

>sieranevada, graduation, the salesman, the red turtle, lady Macbeth, certain women, things to come, personal shopper, Aquarius, love and friendship, embrace of the serpent
Pulling out obscure films just shows that you are trying to project that you are smart. Movies can be missed in the movies but later find a audience with home viewing, but if when it around for home viewing and can't find a audience, it not as good as people pretend it is.